Quote:
Originally Posted by Me Died Blue  This is a good discussion. I want to preface my comments and questions by making it clear that I have not yet been convinced of one position over another, and am simply thinking through and comparing various issues as they relate to each side of the broad issue. That said, there are certain arguments within the issue that I am convinced are weak or flawed; but none of those so far are enough in themselves to fully carry the weight of the whole issue, one way or another.
I likewise sympathize with definitely challenging and taking to task, and pushing for clear textual evidence for, the claim that the creation account easily has a different natural reading than the parts of Scripture we all agree to be literal history. But I'm curious as to your second sentence here (bold emphasis above): What about people who hold a non-literal position for a lifetime? What about Charles Hodge, or Meredith Kline? |
I wasn't familiar with the fact that Hodge or Kline held that view for a lifetime Chris, so that is duly noted. I should have recalled that Warfield certainly understood and accepted many of the evolutionary tenets being put forth in his day. The truth is, I just don't know. I am honestly humbled by the fact that great men of God can be swayed here and there in any given decade and century because they want to attempt to side with current theories as they attempt to understood them during in their lifetime. If they can do it, I certainly can. I always want to err on the side of caution. Sometimes the best thing we can say is the most honest:
I simply don't know.